GoOnKid said:
I might have been able to see your point but I also wanted to make sure you see things in a more realistic way. Please don't think I agree with you. So, something about your entire point is valid: for what we know so far, 2018 might be less stellar than 2017. But on the other hand, two things need to be considered: 1) Quality is subjective, some will value Smash much more than Splatoon for example. Some will even value Ys VIII much more than Smash, for example. Many will want to try Labo and Smash, though, this is very safe to say. Also, every new customer must be considered as a non-Wii U owner. Because the Switch install base is already bigger than Wii U's. If we assume that every single Wii U owner already owns a Switch until now, every new customer values every single one of the Wii U ports as brand new games since they had no chance to experience them so far. Also, even ports that had already been released on other consoles like Skyrim are worthy because it's simply not correct to assume that everyone already played them on other systems. I never played Skyrim or Doom even though I own a PS4. I bought both on the Switch. So, back to my examples from before: some will value DKCTF, Bayonetta, Captain Toad and Hyrule Warriors much higher than any game from 2017. Some will value Wolfenstein II higher than MK8D. For these people, 2018 is superior. 2) We don't know what more games are going to come. There will be more announcements. We don't know how big or small those might be, but they still complement the library nonetheless. You might even try to count Nintendos studios, look at what they already released for the Switch or 3DS so far and see how much is still missing. Look at Retro studios for example. We still know nothing. Also, there's always a chance for surprise games like that sushi game. I'm not saying this sushi game will set the world on fire, but such small games go well with similar ones and they make a few quick bucks. And finally I picked three sentences from your answer above that really bother me. Nintendo has now the means to do way, way better than they are doing. And although that takes time, they have had enough to show us more than what we are seeing in 2018. This is only your opinion. You don't know how much time they need to make certain games, nor do I. We have to wait for them to show the games. Don't be impatient. Here's a contradiction: What i expected from Nintendo was to not use all so many guns in 2017 and leave us with Smash for 2018 - so far. This is your best case scenario that I asked to tell us. But at the same time your answer to Miyamotoo is the opposite: Of course you can do better: releasing 1 system seller + smaller franchises + FE (sells mostly to it's userbase, though), is not the same as releasing 4/5 system sellers in a year. So, what is it now? I might be misinterpreting this but one time you say they should release 4 to 5 system sellers each year but on the other hand you wanted to them to spare some system sellers for later. I don't get it. It doesn't need to be better if you don't mind selling less than what was at your reach. Nintendo wants to sell more units of the Switch in 2018 than in 2017. They wouldn't claim that if they didn't have some cards on their hand. Whether it's Labo or Smash or more smaller games or a combination of all of these or something completely different is something that we don't know yet but Nintendo knows. They woudn't be that optimistic if they had nothing left anymore.
|
Thanks for understanding.
Point 1:
That is true. Not every Switch owner is/was a Wii U owner. But you have to be careful with that kind of reasoning.
First, not every Wii U game was hold back in sales because of poor Wii U sales. For example, newcomers like Splatoon and Mario Maker achieved sales of 4.69m and 3.64m, respectively. Why couldn't Kirby reach bigger numbers? Or DKCTF?
Even Wind Waker remake sold above 2m.
There just were games that the Wii U userbase saw worthwhile buying and other that weren't worthwhile. And not just to them, but also non Wii U owners.
Second, those games feel old. The hype - so to speak - around them went away with time; gamers moved on.
Even if you look at the SW sales right now, you'll see that with the same userbase size, some Wii U ports couldn't do better than the original games. Even with games exclusive to Wii U.
There will always be exceptions to the rule, but the rule seems to be that most games had their chance or just aren't strong enough to get a new life.
Point 2:
That's true aswell. That's why i have been careful in talking about it. I have even used, repeatdly, "so far", when talking about the release schedule for 2018.
And not just in this topic.
After the mini direct, whilst talking to Miyamotoo, i stated a few times that although i felt the first half was packed (if you use the 1 big game per month mantra that Nintendo uses), i was open to the idea that a surprise could still come.
In sum, i am aware that not all is said and done.
"Nintendo has now the means to do way, way better than they are doing. And although that takes time, they have had enough to show us more than what we are seeing in 2018."
This really isn't just an opinion.
If you take into consideration that Nintendo didn't support Wii U since, at least, 2015, and 3DS soon after, and focused pretty much only on Switch that alone would be reason to expect something more for this year.
But that's not all, because if you look at what Nintendo presented us with in 2017 you'll notice the following:
Zelda: a Wii U port; the bulk of development was made during Wii U's lifetime.
It's not like they used a lot of time and staff to develop this game on Switch.
Splatoon 2: The game clearly uses a lot of the work that was done on the first game.
If i recall correctly, people weren't even sure if this was a new game or a port when it was shown the first time.
MK8D: A port with a few extras.
Xenoblade 2: A huge game that took 3 years of development. But... i read in an interview that it ONLY - as if that wasn't enough! - took 3 years because it was being developed alongside X.
The developers mentioned that that fact helped speed up development.
Mario Odyssey, Arms, 1-2-Switch: the only games that were built from the ground up for Switch.
So, that's 5 games+1 full port (MK8)+1 half port (Zelda) for the first year.
It seems great... until you compare it to the Wii U: NintendoLand; Mario U, Pikmin 3, WarioWare, New Super Luigi U and i could even add Mario 3D World, but i won't.
Of course, they weren't all built the ground up for Wii U, but you get the point.
A little note: Mario U was a 3 year development - and the game used a lot of the work done on past games.
So, where is the big difference for a company that was pretty much free to support Switch?
Those examples served different points.
There's no contradiction there.
I also said this to you "i would also expect more new franchises already and 1-2 system sellers to help boost console sales alongside Smash, for 2018".
That's 3 system sellers and more new games + 2 games that were released in 2017.
Miyamotoo was trying to act as if it's irrelevant to wish to sell better because "you can always do better".
That's why i gave that comparison as an example of how differences exist and they aren't irrelative.
That can just be PR talk (During Wii U they had that kind of optimistic speech). Maybe they are banking on Labo or they have something huge planned. Who knows...
Again, that's why i have been careful in not jumping into conclusions as if we already know everything.
Lonely_Dolphin said:
Except it's not an exaggeration (you should probably look up the word), but even if it somehow was, what does that have to do anything? Certainly doesn't make what I said any less correct. Again, you claim Nintendo's 2018 line-up is bad, and you said you were speaking from a business standpoint, so that can only imply you believe the sales are bad/will be bad. I mean if the sales are good, then obviously the line-up isn't bad. "You believe that Switch couldn't do more if the line-up was better?" Are you not paying attention, cause I've repeatedly been saying that things can always be better, hence why it's a moot point. Not sure what you think explaining why you made the PS4 comment is gonna do, but it still doesn't help you. PS4 having drops but still selling well overall (you admitted this), only shows to me that Switch can still do well even if it's sales dip a bit. This would only work in your favor if PS4 started strong but then dropped off. Your very first comment in this thread is of you saying this is a bad year. |
The exaggeration comes from Miyamotoo, and you apparantely, trying to use the "it's always possible to do better" as means to not look if it really is possible or not for Switch to grow substantially or not.
It's a way to mute a reasoning with relativism instead of facts or constructive reasoning: "Are you not paying attention, cause I've repeatedly been saying that things can always be better, hence why it's a moot point."
So a bad line-up can't overshadowed by other factors like better stock, really popular HW concept that remains fresh, 4 system sellers?
Again, the comment was in regards to a expectation from Zorg.
Yes, it's a bad year in terms of game releases.
So we don't go around in circles, you think that arguing that Switch could do better if there were more new games and more system sellers, is na irrelevant discussion, right?
Ok, i don't. I couldn't even imagine howthat we would be true, specially when Switch's first year clearly shows how a great line-up can do wonders, compared to what, i don't know, pretty much every other console?
Honestly, there's no point in going back and forth if we don't even agree on the above.
